To ask why child benefits is means tested in England?Do you agree?

[ddshocker]

Just that really? Why is it means tested in the U.K.? Do you think this is fair considering the financial abuse some women can be suffer even if their dh is a high learner!
In Ireland it's not means tested at all and it is double the U.K. amount...why is the U.K. so adamant in making it unfair!?

Not means tested might be nice, but I'm not sure it's a priority when the country's finances are in the current state!

However, means testing should definitely be based on the income of both parents rather than one, to make it fairer.

And whilst we're doing that, let's start allowing married couples the option of joint tax returns, as nearly all other countries do.

@Meandthesky

YABU

someone earning a six figure salary shouldn’t be entitled to benefits!

And if someone was being financially abused there’s no guarantee they would be able to keep child benefit separate anyway so it still wouldn’t help them

I see your point.

However I was financially abused. I was in a terrible situation where he was spending every penny.

The child allowance came to me - it's automatically registered to the mother in Ireland - and was a guaranteed €420 per month. I was able to keep it separate, and it allowed me to feed my children (marriage has now ended).

I could not at the time tell anyone what was happening.

As it was Ireland the money wasn't means tested. If I was in the UK, or we had a means tested system, I would not have got it.

It is so important that it remains a universal payment, even acknowledging that rich families who don't need it also receive it.

@MilkTwoSugarsThanks

Do you think this is fair considering the financial abuse some women can be suffer even if their dh is a high learner!

Lol. Like financially abused women would ever see that child benefit

IME

I did.

@00100001 I think that's an extreme scenario to be honest but that person would also pay 180k in tax per year! I agree 20quid a month is nothing to them really but the way it's means tested is unfair to a lot of people

By the way, for households where one parent is a low earner and the other a high earner, it is best that the low earner does claim it. Claiming it for a child under 12 gives you NI credits for that year - valuable if your earnings might not give full NI credits. The higher earner has to do a tax return and what you are not entitled to is clawed back that way.

You don’t need to take the CB payments and have the higher earner do the tax return - there’s a box on the form you can tick so you just receive the NI credits.

The current system isn't fair. My husband earns over the threshold so we don't get it. I earn £7K in total per year. Something based on total household income would be much fairer.

We're in the position where I'm on more that £50,000, DH is on significantly less than £50,000 so we can't claim it but other households with a combined income of 99,000 could so in that sense it is unfair.

Or actually get rid of it entirely. The universal credit system is the means tested for families on low income so arguably to really target support then only that should be used.

Child benefit used an odd proxy.

See also the recent council tax rebate for energy bills, as a proxy to get money to people who need it but are above the means testing threshold

It did use to be a universal benefit. Then they made it means tested and, when set against the increase in administration costs, saved very little but it was a useful tool to set about a political narrative in which those who do receive benefits were then treated with contempt and suspicion.

What followed was an erosion of child tax credits and disability allowances.

Basically, when the middle classes are untethered from an investment in a particular system then it becomes far more economically and politically vulnerable.

We can't unbolt that horse, but that's were society took the biggest hit.

It’s means tested in the UK. This also includes Northern Ireland.

YANBU.

As far as I know it was introduced as family allowance to be paid to the mother as too many fathers kept the mothers short of housekeeping.

And even those in high earning families can be victims of financial abuse, so no, it should not be means tested, and it should not be called a benefit, it should go back to being an allowance.

It's unfair, as a single parent I earn £60k and get no child benefit. But a couple each earning £49k, so £98k in total, do get child benefit.

YANBU. it should be based on total household income. There has to be a threshold somewhere though. But a family could still be struggling living off £100k in London and the South East so it’s not that simple.
Older people get non means tested winter fuel benefit, I think families should get the child benefit regardless

@ddshocker

Is it not means tested In Scotland and wales then?

Again, England, Scotland and Wales are not the UK. The UK includes Northern Ireland.

@Theskullcupofdoom I know what the U.K. includes...

I said England in my title, I then wrote my piece and forgot to change the title to the U.K.

I didn't mention Northern Ireland because I was just asking a quick question,

Or actually get rid of it entirely. The universal credit system is the means tested for families on low income so arguably to really target support then only that should be used.

Actually I agree with this. It should either return to being non means tested or it should be targeted better through the benefits system.

I think it's right that it's means tested but agree that the system is flawed.

@Theskullcupofdoom I just reread your statement?

The U.K. is made up of England,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Why are you saying that the U.K. is NOT England Scotland and Wales?

@FourTeaFallOut

It did use to be a universal benefit. Then they made it means tested and, when set against the increase in administration costs, saved very little but it was a useful tool to set about a political narrative in which those who do receive benefits were then treated with contempt and suspicion.

What followed was an erosion of child tax credits and disability allowances.

Basically, when the middle classes are untethered from an investment in a particular system then it becomes far more economically and politically vulnerable.

We can't unbolt that horse, but that's were society took the biggest hit.

This. CB was the only benefit I used to receive and once it was means tested I stopped claiming as obviously it would be a clawback via my self assessment.

People aren’t looking at the wider macro impact of removing a whole portion of society from this mecanism. Do I need £x per week per child? No. But has it decoupled me from ‘benefits’ per se? Does that have a downstream impact? Yes.

If I was childless, I’d be incandescent that my taxes pay other peoples CB and that my taxes go towards schools. Imagine giving tax breaks to those without children. Then think about the wider impact that has on society when those who don’t claim benefits view whose who do.

All of these are levers that the government could now choose to apply. In my view all it will do is send us further down the slopes of judgement against those who claim benefits.

Personally I don't think it should be means tested.
The current system is unfair in its distribution in that a couple each earning 50k (100k household income) would still receive the allowance but a single earner taking 55k would not.
I reality the cost of administration in means testing likely outways the return. A person earning £51K would pay £7900 income tax and £4880 NI, a total tax bill of £12780.
The proportion of child allowance is therefore small and obviously on higher salaries would be proportionally less.
As the only benefit I ever received I was saddened by the new unfair assessment of means testing as a single income household with SAHM.
It also does allow an income to a parent if there is financial abuse within a household too.

Yabu.
Freeing up the cash so it can go to families who need it for essentials rather than being used as pocket money by the rich is sensible.

@Theskullcupofdoom I am half asleep I am rereading it again and I get what you are saying now so ignore my second message 🤣

Also. How do I now feel about benefits in general? How invested/ knowledgeable am i? Do I know / understand about the erosions/ impacts to families and how worrying certain trends are? No. I don’t. Why? Because I’ve completely been removed (by the government) from that narrative. And it suits them that that is what has happened.

That’s the bigger picture that people are missing.

I agree that it’s unfair how two adults earning 49k each in a household can get it.

Where I am in the uk, it was all organised when you went to register the birth, which means that mothers will get it.

My DH earns over the threshold but I still choose to claim it, one so my NI contributions are paid and two, because I need that money for the children each month. My DH has to pay it all back at the end of the tax year but I’d rather it that way.

@shouldistop

Means testing might be fair but the current method isn't.

A couple earning £49k each so £98k can claim it and not pay any back but a couple earning £51k and £10k for example can't.

This. I was sole earner in our family, just above limit for child benefit. My husband was not able to work due to severe mental illness for over 20 years. We claimed no benefits - we could have got PIP. for him potentially but the assessment process would have been impossible for him due to it triggering hallucinations. If we’d both been earning half that amount each we’d have still been able to claim We had one at uni, and one doing GCSE when it was taken away. It hit us quite hard as about the same time I was getting pay freezes at work I really resented that I was working with people where both they and their spouse were in work, earning say £5000 or even less than me and still got child benefit. In fact people could earn almost twice out family income and still receive it . It was a crap way of dealing with this. It came about because they clawed back through tax system which just doesn’t cope with family income , just personal income. It was lazy thinking and cheap implementation . They didn’t do a proper assessment on fall out with families like ours where disability means one parent can’t work (even if to look after a child with disability), and the other parent has to work to make up for that loss of income, I know there are a lot of families on far less than my sole income at just above the cutoff. And yes benefits should be targeted at them. I do think that there should have been a sliding scale , not an absolute cut off point, and that somehow someone could have come up with a better system to take household income into account,